Replies

My interpretation of the comment is that the WH is saying government is no longer obligated to provide her free legal representation (as DoJ would if she was still serving in some official capacity) and she is footing the bill for this crisis herself.

Not that she is suffering for money (despite her “We were broke!” comments to the contrary). But now we have a taxpayer-funded Congressional committee legal staff doing battle with her attorneys. After awhile, the legal fee shoe will probably start to pinch.

The neat thing about it is that it is a lose-lose situation for her.

If she really did wipe the server, she loses. If she didn’t, and has to turn it over, she loses. If there are significant emails discovered in other locations that she didn’t turn over, she loses. If the emails reveal a pattern of political favor trading, she loses. If she goes into “Queen Hillary” mode and battles making an appearance before committee, she loses. If she appears but puts on a performance like the Benghazi Hearings, she loses. And, of course, she really can’t do much campaigning if she is constantly having to avoid press questions like she did recently.

So I see the WH statement as just another “no love lost between them” Valentine to HRC from BHO and Valerie Jarrett. Other than electing a Republican, the last thing either of them probably want is for THAT white woman to be elected President.

I don’t underestimate the power of the liberal wing of the Democratic party - especially liberal women Democrats - to muster resources to support her. The problem is sell-ability. She is taking on the appearance of leftover used goods (in more ways than one) from the previous election cycles. She is eight years older than she was when a charismatic junior senator from Illinois with damned little real experience bumped her off in the primaries. She will be “inevitable” until some other youthful Democratic personality comes along to give them a fresh look and a real alternative who could win.